196 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

dervishx5, on 30 August 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

"This is unbalanced" -> Paul "fixes" it -> "This is unbalanced" -> Paul "fixes" it -> "This is unbalanced" -> Paul "fixes" it -> "This is unbalanced" -> Paul "fixes" it -> ∞

Not sure what limiting/removing alpha strike does to fix or improve this cycle.

Balance will always be a cycle. But instant pinpoint convergence is one of the major drivers of imbalance.

dervishx5, on 30 August 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

I mean I think I see where you're going with it Hott. In theory limiting alpha strike would increase TTK and people would be able to do more. But in practice, as has been demonstrated many times (see: LL Stalker), this isn't going to be true. I'm saying the meta will adapt and you'll see mechs dying about as quickly.

What I would like to see is a true heat scale, and Alpha/group penalties not be enforced by heat, but by accuracy. PGI has never even attempted a solution along these lines.

dervishx5, on 30 August 2016 - 12:31 PM, said:

It seems like a lot of effort for not much gain. Unless you enforce chain-fire then whatever hybrid version of alpha/chain we get will not change things much.

We can agree that enforced chain fire is neither of ours' goal. But I believe the fight to be just, and therefore worth the effort.

Gas Guzzler, on 30 August 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

It's not a question of whether or not it should be balanced which is an opinion. I just find it extremely unlikely that it will ever be, so I don't think wasting time talking about it is a worthwhile use of time.

I cannot agree to that. Solutions that conform to the BT universe and address the problems should be discussed.
If (when) I get to the point that I concede that MW:O will always lean to the arcade solutions over sim, I will simply uninstall and vanish. Which is a pity, because I rather like the forums here.

Gas Guzzler, on 30 August 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Considering that aside from my embellishment, what was in quotes has actually been said, and the attitudes of others goes along with that sentiment, I think I'm generally aware that that thought process is definitely present in many Energy Draw proponents.

Let's agree to leave other people's tangental arguments out of our debate.

Gas Guzzler, on 30 August 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Never said you were championing energy draw, I was just letting you know where the "better players" clause was coming from because you didn't know why it kept coming up.

Okay, but again, let's not attribute their biases to each other.

Ultimax, on 30 August 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

There is a reason why firing a gun is as simple as pulling a trigger, it's not a crutch - it's simply efficient.

I never said firing a gun was a crutch, I said having multiple weapons instantly and precisely aimed to the same convergence point was easier than firing multiple weapons in succession and achieving the same result. Because it is so much easier, it is a crutch.

Ultimax, on 30 August 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

The same goes for boating.

Its more efficient when firing your weapons, and exposes you to less return fire.

It is both an offensive and defensive measure.

Yes, it is more efficient, and much easier. that is why it is the only way to play and be effective.
It also lowers TTK and is a lazy game mechanic for BT.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Because it is so much easier, it is a crutch.

Only if that is the default or intended way to play would that actually be a crutch.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

A crutch doesn't make it easier to walk if you have two legs.

A crutch doesn't make you walk better if you have two legs, either. People with two good legs do not use crutches.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

If you think that good players rely on this too much for support of their skill, you are in for a rude awakening because they will be good even in a forced chain fire environment, whether they find the game interesting enough to actually bother with it is another story.

Name one good player that does not rely on it in a competitive match. Not due to lack of skill, but because the other team is doing it, too, and not doing it hurts your team.
I have said that good players will be good players no matter what. I resent the implication that I have ever argued otherwise.
Please point out when I have ever asked for forced chain fire.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

The implication that is a crutch says you do, or at least a subset will, because apparently using any advantage is a "crutch" to you (what about practicing, is that a crutch too?).

I have explained how and why it is a crutch, would you like to knock down a few more straw men while you are at it?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Ignoring your premise vs conclusion crap because it actually isn't my premise within my comprehension, but this is the funny part. Being combined into one super weapon due to their weight and size IS the selling point of having a bunch of varying weights in weapons. How do you balance a weapon that costs you 0.5 tons and 1 slot versus one that costs you 14 tons and 10 slots, especially in an environment that hates grouped weapons?

FTFY.
They can be balanced by the other 8 balancing tools. (You know they are not supposed to be equal, right? Just balanced)

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

Only if that is the default or intended way to play would that actually be a crutch.

Guess what, it IS the default way to play. (If you want to be competitive).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

A crutch doesn't make you walk better if you have two legs, either. People with two good legs do not use crutches.

Name one good player that does not rely on it in a competitive match. Not due to lack of skill, but because the other team is doing it, too, and not doing it hurts your team.

You missed the point entirely, by your definition of a crutch, using optimized strategies or good tactics is a crutch because it makes things "easier". If it isn't group fire, it is firing off all the biggest guns in short sequence, your argument is a catch-all for all advantages potentially gained. Am I not supposed to torso twist because not doing so would hurt my team because my opponents do it?

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

They can be balanced by the other 8 balancing tools. (You know they are not supposed to be equal, right? Just balanced)

You mean those same balancing tools that exist currently and do just that for balancing "super weapons" vs big weapon boats? You wanna talk about comprehension, lets start there.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

Guess what, it IS the default way to play. (If you want to be competitive).

Then it isn't a crutch if group fire is the intended way to play.....it is a mechanic designed to be taken advantage of. This idea that its a crutch because people don't play the game how you want them to play is as ridiculous as people who complained about legging as being "cheating" in MW4 and this game (surprisingly those people do still exist).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 August 2016 - 01:44 PM.

[Mystere]

LordNothing, on 30 August 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

if you eliminate alpha strikes and boats, then theres not a whole lot else you can do with this game. id love to be able to spend more time in the mech lab, but if you cant boat and you cant alpha, there is not much else to do.

i kind of disagree about everyone building for alpha. of course you build to maximize your damage rating. but mixed builds (which is also the antithesis of boating), generally rotate groups. an alpha is wasteful for a mixed build, because weapons have different velocities and/or mechanics. the only way srms, a gauss and lasers are all going to land where you want them is if your target is standing still. you kind of want to lead those targets a little more with the srms, slightly with the gauss (not to mention charging it), and not at all with the lasers. you run cooler for not tripping penalties, at the expense of more complex fire control. pd is going to worsen that aspect a little bit, since there is going to be fewer hard barriers to heat penalties.

i really dont think we should be getting rid of any of those tactics. they should all have pros and cons. 3 bar was one idea that was meant to give better mechanics taylored to each hardpoint type. it would blunt the high alpha laser vomit problem, not enough to make it go away, but enough to make metabuilders think twice and consider other ideas. boats would be focusing all their weapons into one set of mechanics and so they would need longer intervals between trigger pulls to cool down. mixed builds would be spreading it out and racking up fewer penalties as a result. i really think it has potential, and would really just require cut and pasting the ed system 3 times, with each bar having different detrimental effects.

Actually, with some changes, PGI could probably do that with GH now. They just need to create simpler grouping rules like (for example):

• Lasers/PPCs: Small:1 point; Mediums:2 points; Large/PPC:3 points --> 9 Points MAX (e.g. 3 Large Lasers MAX before GH)
  
• LRMS: LRM5:1; LRM10:1.5; LRM15:2; LRM20:3 --> 6 points MAX (e.g. 2 LRM20s MAX before GH)
  
• etc.

Edited by Mystere, 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

You missed the point entirely, by your definition of a crutch, using optimized strategies or good tactics is a crutch because it makes things "easier". If it isn't group fire, it is firing off all the biggest guns in short sequence, your argument is a catch-all for all advantages potentially gained. Am I not supposed to torso twist because not doing so would hurt my team because my opponents do it?

I'm afraid you have missed the point. Using optimized strategies is one thing, using a broken mechanic for an advantge is a crutch. (If you recall, instant perfect convergence was never supposed to be a thing)
YOU are trying to twist my argument into a catch-all for any advantage, but it isn't. Torso twisting is a skill, coming up with effective strategies and tactics, and executing them is a skill. Mapping multiple weapons to a single button is not a skill.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

You mean those same balancing tools that exist currently and do just that for balancing "super weapons" vs big weapon boats? You wanna talk about comprehension, lets start there.

I see. You define "balanced" as "equal".
You are mistaken.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Then it isn't a crutch if group fire is the intended way to play.....it is a mechanic designed to be taken advantage of.

First you say it isn't a crutch if it isn't intended to be that way, then you say it isn't a crutch if it is intended to be that way. Wow.

I say it is a crutch because it is the default way to play. We know it was not the intended way to play, necessarily, because in the beginning there was no perfectly precise instant convergence.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

This idea that its a crutch because people don't play the game how you want them to play is as ridiculous as people who complained about legging as being "cheating" in MW4 and this game (surprisingly those people do still exist).

How many times do I have to explain why it is a crutch? How many times are you going to construct straw men and red herrings? I never said anything about making people play the way I want them to play. I have only argued that BOTH ways should be viable in a good game.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm afraid you have missed the point. Using optimized strategies is one thing, using a broken mechanic for an advantge is a crutch.

It isn't broken if it is working as intended...

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

(If you recall, instant perfect convergence was never supposed to be a thing)

Except it has been since MW2, so this is a large assumption even if it is based on TT which never had it.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

YOU are trying to twist my argument into a catch-all for any advantage, but it isn't.

Your only way of defining it has been that it is easier, until now that is when you finally clarified a little bit. What makes it different than using your HUD though? HUDs make it easier to manage heat, should we play without vision modes because they make it easier and only take the press of a button?

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

I see. You define "balanced" as "equal".
You are mistaken.

So do I, the only difference is I don't think that weapons have to be good enough on their own merit that they are effective without group fire because I see group fire as a built in facet of Mechwarrior and not some abomination to gameplay. This game doesn't need viable chain firing to be balanced.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

First you say it isn't a crutch if it isn't intended to be that way, then you say it isn't a crutch if it is intended to be that way.

Yeah the last one I was wrong on because things like Noobtubes are designed specifically to be crutches (which only get you so far mind you, like LRMs in this game). Crutches are specifically some form in the game that mitigates a deficiency in skill. Group fire is not a crutch because it doesn't mitigate some deficiency in skill. Sure chain fire takes more skill but that doesn't make group fire some crutch because chain fire doesn't have any reward attached to it. If there was some benefit (not saying it is possible, just saying if it was) that allowed to be the dominant way to play in comp but when learning group fire was the way to play, THEN you could say it is a crutch. Seeing as that is NOT the case though, it isn't a crutch. What good players use is generally a good indication of what aren't crutches, not what are.

Where did this idea that chain fire had to be a competitive firing mode with group fire rather than a supplemental firing mode come from?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 August 2016 - 03:05 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

It isn't broken if it is working as intended...

But it isn't working as intended. What was intended (at the creation of the game) was delayed convergence. I would go so far as to say that Ghost heat and Energy Draw are put into the game exactly because instant perfect convergence is not "working as intended".

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Except it has been since MW2, so this is a large assumption even if it is based on TT which never had it.

Explained above

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Your only way of defining it has been that it is easier, until now that is when you finally clarified a little bit. What makes it different than using your HUD though? HUDs make it easier to manage heat, should we play without vision modes because they make it easier and only take the press of a button?

You and I have had this debate before in another thread. If you recall, I explained in depth there. What makes you think my argument has changed?
Once again, the HUD, vision modes, your keyboard and mouse, etc., none of those are taking advantage of a broken mechanic. Apples and orangutans, bro.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

So do I, the only difference is I don't think that weapons have to be good enough on their own merit that they are effective without group fire because I see group fire as a built in facet of Mechwarrior and not some abomination to gameplay. This game doesn't need viable chain firing to be balanced.

This is our fundamental disagreement. But I have to ask why are you so opposed to chain fire having some advantages over group fire and vice versa?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Yeah the last one I was wrong on because things like Noobtubes are designed specifically to be crutches (which only get you so far mind you, like LRMs in this game). Crutches are specifically some form in the game that mitigates a deficiency in skill.

Group fire is not a crutch because it doesn't mitigate some deficiency in skill. Sure chain fire takes more skill but that doesn't make group fire some crutch because chain fire doesn't have any reward attached to it. If there was some benefit (not saying it is possible, just saying if it was) that allowed to be the dominant way to play in comp but when learning group fire was the way to play, THEN you could say it is a crutch. Seeing as that is NOT the case though, it isn't a crutch.

I do not see it that way. A good player will still have the skill to chain fire and put his shots on one component. It is not about a deficiency of skill, but the fact that the bar for said skill is set very low. People with sprained ankles walk with crutches because it is easier, not because they lack the skill to walk.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Where did this idea that chain fire had to be a competitive firing mode with group fire rather than a supplemental firing mode come from?

Mainly the BattleTech universe, where Alpha striking was situational, and hitting a target with simultaneously fired multiple weapons was a rare feat.
It also comes from the fact that having more than one viable way to play a game is a trait of good games.

[dervishx5]

I think by "delayed convergence" they meant the separate tracking reticles for the torso and arms.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

But it isn't working as intended. What was intended (at the creation of the game) was delayed convergence.

This is true, and I'm still sure the reason we don't have this is because their algorithms for computing collisions are not only overly expensive, but wrong in several cases. That said, it didn't solve the problem just like any sort of convergence "solution" is anything but. It exacerbates mech balance because clustered-high mounted hardpoints become even more valuable than they are currently in the live client, and almost all the best mechs have them. Without instant or perfect convergence, mechs like the King Crab or Vindicator would be even worse.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

This is our fundamental disagreement. But I have to ask why are you so opposed to chain fire having some advantages over group fire and vice versa?

Because I don't think they can coexist, it is either one or the other.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

I do not see it that way. A good player will still have the skill to chain fire and put his shots on one component. It is not about a deficiency of skill, but the fact that the bar for said skill is set very low.

And yet so few are actually good at this game, I don't think the bar is that low for skill.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

It also comes from the fact that having more than one viable way to play a game is a trait of good games.

All groups are not equal. The end result will always be continuous damage vs sustained burst vs spike damage, those are really what this game boils down to outside of range. Chain fire isn't needed to have all of them viable or varied gameplay.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 August 2016 - 05:05 PM.

[Hotthedd]

dervishx5, on 30 August 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

I think by "delayed convergence" they meant the separate tracking reticles for the torso and arms.

No, back before they removed it, it would take time for all of your weapons to line up on one point. Between hit-reg and lag and all things being server-side, PGI decided to abandon it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

This is true, and I'm still sure the reason we don't have this is because their algorithms for computing collisions are not only overly expensive, but wrong in several cases. That said, it didn't solve the problem just like any sort of convergence "solution" is anything but. It exacerbates mech balance because clustered-high mounted hardpoints become even more valuable than they are currently in the live client, and almost all the best mechs have them. Without instant or perfect convergence, mechs like the King Crab or Vindicator would be even worse.

So you are against anything besides perfect instant convergence because some mechs would be better than others?
We have that situation right now.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

Because I don't think they can coexist, it is either one or the other.

Do you have any reasons to back that up?
If there was reticle bloom that got slightly bigger depending on the # of weapons fired, you do not see how chain fire (pinpoint precision, lower damage) and group/alpha fire (some spread, huge damage) would make both play styles unique, and viable?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

And yet so few are actually good at this game, I don't think the bar is that low for skill.

The bar is set quite low for aiming and hitting the enemy. Much of the rest of the game requires other skills.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 30 August 2016 - 04:59 PM, said:

All groups are not equal. The end result will always be continuous damage vs sustained burst vs spike damage, those are really what this game boils down to outside of range. Chain fire isn't needed to have all of them viable or varied gameplay.

With the exception of the soon to be nerfed UA/C 10, and maybe UA/C 5, what other weapons can effectively do sustained burst?
What do you have against the viability of chain fire?

[dervishx5]

I don't remember convergence and I was here from the beginning.

[Hotthedd]

dervishx5, on 30 August 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

I don't remember convergence and I was here from the beginning.

It is the reason for the "Pinpoint" skill on the pilot tree.
...I'm sure PGI will get right on doing something about that.

[dervishx5]

Oh that, the shrinking reticle.

Yeah, it's penned to be added in after they finally get balance to where everyone wants it.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

No, back before they removed it, it would take time for all of your weapons to line up on one point. Between hit-reg and lag and all things being server-side, PGI decided to abandon it.

I know, but it didn't really affect the ability to snapshot on mechs like the Goosapult.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

So you are against anything besides perfect instant convergence because some mechs would be better than others?
We have that situation right now.

And we would have that same situation except magnified to a higher degree.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

Do you have any reasons to back that up?
If there was reticle bloom that got slightly bigger depending on the # of weapons fired, you do not see how chain fire (pinpoint precision, lower damage) and group/alpha fire (some spread, huge damage) would make both play styles unique, and viable?

No, I see it being about chain firing as few as possible big weapons, especially if the reticle bloom doesn't take into account damage and only takes into account the number of weapons fired, regardless of chain fire or group fire.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

The bar is set quite low for aiming and hitting the enemy. Much of the rest of the game requires other skills.

Why does it need to be hard to hit the enemy? Being able to hit the enemy again, has a direct influence on what strats are viable and it isn't like hit percentages are crazy, mine is about 65-70 for things like Gauss and PPCs which isn't honestly high enough that I would say aiming is that easy.

Hotthedd, on 30 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

With the exception of the soon to be nerfed UA/C 10, and maybe UA/C 5, what other weapons can effectively do sustained burst?
What do you have against the viability of chain fire?

Because I don't think it makes for better gameplay.

Sustained burst doesn't have too terribly much because it tends to revolve around ballistics because low heat is needed for sustained burst and chain fire being viable won't change that dynamic.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 August 2016 - 06:41 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

StaggerCheck, on 22 August 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

We're allowed to shoe-horn in any engine we desire, as an afterthought, after we've designed the perfect weapon build. How about only allowing three to four different engine ratings, XL or standard, per chassis? That still allows for eight engine types, and the design process would be harder in the Mech Lab... thus more challenge to come up with something good.

This part, right here. Refund all engines, remove them all, allow range of 1-2 steps up and down to minimum as it currently is, but remove this +5 increments to optimize rating issue, i think a lot of issues is in this part alone. Let those that don't break the speed limit go up. Those that straddle it may be the exception, but no higher obviously. Yes that means 200 rating locusts if needed for balancing.

[LordNothing]

Mystere, on 30 August 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Actually, with some changes, PGI could probably do that with GH now. They just need to create simpler grouping rules like (for example):

• Lasers/PPCs: Small:1 point; Mediums:2 points; Large/PPC:3 points --> 9 Points MAX (e.g. 3 Large Lasers MAX before GH)
  
• LRMS: LRM5:1; LRM10:1.5; LRM15:2; LRM20:3 --> 6 points MAX (e.g. 2 LRM20s MAX before GH)
  
• etc.

the real difference is that heat wouldn't be the only penalty. penalty instead reflects the weapon type. lasers, ppcs and flamers all generate large heat penalties through a gh/pd mechanic (i think i made the point somewhere that gh and pd are fundamentally not that different). missiles tax your guidence computer resources. over do it an your missiles wont be able to hit an assault hanger let alone an assault mech. guns would rattle you, throwing off your aim if your dps gets too high, shifting your actuators if your alphas are too large and ripping apart your own mech if you go too far.

all weapons are going to need to be refactored no matter what you do. so you might as well choose a mechanic that is both easy to adjust and versatile. and 3bar lets you do it. under my system you could really solve some of the problems with missiles, big launchers might become the go to for mixed builds. people boating missiles would actually be encouraged to allocate more tonnage to backup weapons to spread the effects to different penalty mechanics. it doesnt prevent boating, alpha or mixed builds. but gives each tactic its own flavor, its own drawbacks, and its own advantages. and ultimately its not a 90% rehash of ghost heat.